• Hello From Descent

    The publication date for issue 289 is the 10th of December, meaning subscribers should receive their copies during the week leading up to that date. It is also available from caving suppliers such as Inglesport and Starless River, or from our new website

    New Descent board here:

CSCC AGM Notification

Ed W

Member
The following has just been circulated by email to CSCC members;

Dear All,

The AGM of the Council of Southern Caving Clubs will be held at 7pm on Friday 14th May. Due to the ongoing COVID situation this will be a virtual meeting, the Zoom link will be circulated closer to the date.

Anyone is welcome to attend, but only the appointed representatives of member clubs may vote at the meeting. Nominations for officer roles are now open. Anyone is welcome to stand for any of the roles. For information the following incumbents indicated that they will be standing again at the AGM; Ed Waters (Chair), Frank Tully (Secretary), Graham Price (Conservation and Access), Andrew Atkinson (Equipment & Techniques), Linda Wilson (BCA Representative), Dave Keegan (Training) and Dave Cooke (Webmaster). We currently do not have candidates for the Treasurer and Communications Officer roles. All nominations need to be sent to the secretary by 15th March.

Proposals for alterations to the Constitution (Constitution [Council of Southern Caving Clubs] (cscc.org.uk)) need to be made to the secretary by Friday 19th March, and will be circulated to the membership by Friday 2nd April.

I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the AGM,

Ed Waters (Chair CSCC)

 
Can the Agenda and any supporting documents be loaded on the web site in advance of the meeting. Last Mondays meeting still only has an Agenda and the BCA Rep Report. Surely there are other Officers' reports?
 

Ed W

Member
John, the various paperwork will be distributed prior to the meeting as required by the new constitution.  Apart from the BCA rep, officers reports were given verbally at the meeting (which anyone was welcome to attend) and will be contained in the draft minutes of the meeting which will be uploaded to the website very soon.
 

JoshW

Active member
Ed W said:
Draft minutes of the Feb 2nd meeting are now available on the CSCC website; https://cscc.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=documents:start

Thanks Ed. Interesting that there is clearly some want from CSCC to go back to 'physical' meetings. If the BCA starts to go back to in-person meetings, I'll leave ha! Zoom meetings for me are (or can be) so much more efficient, plus don't require living close to the location, but I'd be interested to hear the flip side of that?
 
Thanks Ed,

I like to read the Officers' reports in advance to see if there is anything I'd like our rep to raise. I also think it requires a little more thought from an officer if they have to prepare it in advance rather than deliver "on the fly". Under para 6, C&A Report, the draft minutes say "Report is published on Website alongside these minutes" but I don't see it yet?

I do realise it's all volunteers so grateful that anything gets done at all (y)
 

JoshW

Active member
The section on the 10.1 consultation makes for interesting reading.

I personally think it's difficult to describe it as a power grab, on the basis that at the 2020 AGM over 3/4 of members who voted, voted in favour for consideration of new wording.

As a member of the working group who are working on this, I have to echo Ed's praise of Andy Mcleod and his work into controlling the masses on a clearly very personal issue for some, to create a document/consultation that gives both sides of the story.

As the new (do I still count as new after a year in the job) Y&D officer, I'm always happy to discuss issues with regards to access for younger people to caves, and how we should be looking to push a conservation campaign over restricting access to certain groups of people.

As always, my messages on here/facebook and at youth@british-caving.org.uk are open for comments/discussion.
 

2xw

Active member
JoshW said:
The section on the 10.1 consultation makes for interesting reading.

I personally think it's difficult to describe it as a power grab, on the basis that at the 2020 AGM over 3/4 of members who voted, voted in favour for consideration of new wording.

As a member of the working group who are working on this, I have to echo Ed's praise of Andy Mcleod and his work into controlling the masses on a clearly very personal issue for some, to create a document/consultation that gives both sides of the story.

As the new (do I still count as new after a year in the job) Y&D officer, I'm always happy to discuss issues with regards to access for younger people to caves, and how we should be looking to push a conservation campaign over restricting access to certain groups of people.

As always, my messages on here/facebook and at youth@british-caving.org.uk are open for comments/discussion.

Interesting to see GM still peddling outright misinformation in these meetings despite the CCC committing to putting the issue to bed.

It's a shame the CSCC does not challenge this sort of divisive fakery. Same old, same old. I don't spose it's even worth me bothering to comment on it although at some point his actions will begin to border on slander.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Legally the only way you can change CCC is from within CCC, the BCA has no jurisdiction - hence the clause.
 

2xw

Active member
mikem said:
Legally the only way you can change CCC is from within CCC, the BCA has no jurisdiction - hence the clause.

Of course, but the sentence:

"In the case concerned the officers of BCA went beyond the boundaries the constitution and broke the trust which the membership puts in them. They should not make constitutional change to grab more power when they are already not trusted to use in properly."

Is a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated (because we were requested in writing by a member as per the constitution), which is precisely why their complaints against me were (repeatedly) rejected. And the purpose of that lie, as seen in the second sentence, is to deceive the meeting and deliberately undermine the integrity of the Association. It is mendacious deception and an insult to anyone who has reached into their wallet and paid membership, and a big U turn on the "settled" status of the issue which was supposedly put to bed after I apologised for hurting their feelings.

It is little wonder that this cabal sees any shred of accountability for their actions to be a "power grab", and, frankly, a stain on the integrity of the CSCC that these untruths are peddled without challenge.

 

mikem

Well-known member
Individual members didn't exist when the clause was first written, so it is one interpretation. It does need rewording, but you don't have much wriggle room, due to the way BCA was constituted - & it does have potential to rip the BCA apart.
 

NewStuff

New member
mikem said:
... it does have potential to rip the BCA apart.

This has been in progress for a while. While the rest of the BCA is trying to modernise and better reflect it's members views, you have the CSCC, and individuals within the CSCC actively trying to undermine those efforts to maintain the status quo. I've said before, either this gets stopped, or the BCA will implode. Why would anyone want to volunteer time & effort, or pay money for subs when one small part of the underground community can sabotage what the rest want? The BCA will run into significant issues filling positions over and above the normal low uptake of volunteer options if this is allowed to drag on and the CSCC are humoured.

There is good work being done, but in spite of some sterling efforts, it's tempered by deliberate and calculated actions to halt progress in this manner.
 

cavemanmike

Member
NewStuff said:
mikem said:
... it does have potential to rip the BCA apart.

This has been in progress for a while. While the rest of the BCA is trying to modernise and better reflect it's members views, you have the CSCC, and individuals within the CSCC actively trying to undermine those efforts to maintain the status quo. I've said before, either this gets stopped, or the BCA will implode. Why would anyone want to volunteer time & effort, or pay money for subs when one small part of the underground community can sabotage what the rest want? The BCA will run into significant issues filling positions over and above the normal low uptake of volunteer options if this is allowed to drag on and the CSCC are humoured.

There is good work being done, but in spite of some sterling efforts, it's tempered by deliberate and calculated actions to halt progress in this manner.

Wow that's the most measured and calm response I've ever seen you use  :clap: :clap: :clap:.
You been on a anger management course Ali  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 

NewStuff

New member
cavemanmike said:
Wow that's the most measured and calm response I've ever seen you use  :clap: :clap: :clap:.
You been on a anger management course Ali  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Calm before the storm?

Nah, I'm done with trying to talk, nicely or otherwise to certain people and groups. They have no intention of doing anything other than running interference. I'm sitting back and watching the shitshow now. Carcrash TV if you will. It'll get sorted, or it won't. Nothing that I can personally do will change it either way. I'm just going caving.
 

Ed W

Member
Guys, I am a little disappointed with the tone of some of these posts, lots of hard work has been put in to improving the relationship between CSCC and BCA and if it is perceived that this is not working then I can't help feeling that even more hard work is required by all involved. 

The statements from the minutes is NOT the CSCC position, but a record of what the attendees said at the meeting, afterall this is what minutes are supposed to do.  The response to the CSCC consultation on Clause 10.1 is included in the minutes at item 11.2 and I would hope accurately reflects the feelings of the membership of the CSCC and is seen as constructive and useful to the constitution working group.  If you want to comment on what was said, either in the minutes or the consultation response, then please feel free to write to me (in my role of CSCC chair) or the CSCC secretary so it can be addressed at the next meeting.

I would agree that in the past the CSCC has been very reactionary with regard to the BCA, indeed that is the main reason why I put myself forward to get involved - I didn't feel it was right to criticise if I was not prepared to get up and do something about it.  I really like to think that the CSCC is rapidly becoming more transparent in its actions and also far more representative of it's members than perhaps it has been in the past.

Everything I have said in this post is from my personal point of view, not in my role as chair of the CSCC.

 

NewStuff

New member
Ed W said:
If you want to comment on what was said, either in the minutes or the consultation response, then please feel free to write to me (in my role of CSCC chair) or the CSCC secretary so it can be addressed at the next meeting.
I'd rather ask my questions out in the open, everyone knows where they stand and what's been said. Why are GM and LJW, amongst others, allowed to carry on peddling misinformation? Reading the minutes, you can see a clear shift in attitude once they chip in on the subject.
 
Top